Re: Where would we be without these important patents?


<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44202fa3.16581965@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

However, neither are the alternatives.Unless you
can show that the static efficiency loss due to patent monopolies is
greater
than the losses due to a lack of technological advance or to bureaucratic
inefficiency, then you can't really claim that patents are inefficient.

Garbage. It is known that cash payments are more efficient incentives
than monopolies. In addition, you have completely ignored (surprise!)
some extremely efficient -- and _proven_ efficient -- alternatives:

1. The system of scholarly priority used for scientific research has
been proved extremely effective in stimulating both research and
publication, and is virtually cost-free to society. No one has ever
advanced any credible argument that a similar system would not work
just as well for inventions.

But patents don't prevent that from happening. In fact, patents encourage
scientific research.This is because patents are a source of income for
universities, and also because people who build their reputations by
publishing scientific works papers often go on to work in industry
developing patentable products.



2. The system of publicly offering cash prizes for solutions to
difficult technical problems has proven to be vastly more efficient
than the patent system, and far more effective at stimulating research
expenditures. Patents never solved the problem of human-powered
flight even after centuries of development. The Kremer Prize did it
in less than 20 years. The X Prize, the DARPA Grand Challenge, the
Ing Prize: there are many, many examples where the prize money offered
has been dwarfed by the research and development expenditures it has
stimulated.

Human-powered flight isn't an economically useful invention, so that example
doesn't really prove anything.

3. A system of public funds distributed not by the discretion of
appointed officials but by an objective allocation system based on
product revenues, voting by industry, academe and the public, and/or
any number of other transparent mechanisms would almost certainly
provide a very efficient allocation of incentives, far more efficient
than patents. Prizes for desired inventions could be established by
similar mechanisms as post hoc rewards for unanticipated inventions.

There's any number of unproven ideas, most of which would be inefficient,
unworkable and/or unfair.

All three of these would be more efficient than patents, and would not
violate anyone's rights (except, in the case of government money, to
the extent that the tax system violated their rights, but that's a
separate issue). More possibilities could be developed. The key
point, though, is to be willing to know the fact that you don't
stimulate progress and excellence by giving rents for them after the
fact. You do it by establishing _meaningful_competition_ from the
outset. The old Soviet Union dominated the Olympic medal standings
not because its athletes got more product endorsement rent incomes
after winning medals than American athletes, but because the Soviet
government knew what it wanted, and paid to get it.

I'm sure that if the USA followed your advice, it could be as successful as
the USSR was.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RIAA a bit heavy-handed you say?
    ... >>> Those of us who are producers appreciate the fact that our inventions ... >> Patents exist for a reason. ... >> would be a huge disincentive to innovation. ... spend money on innovation if they couldn't protect their rights. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: The Great Divide
    ... It's a job because they are being paid to obtain patents, ... And DuPont's money would be spent more productively than in rent ... Stimulating publication of research. ... government deposit insurance, the taxpayers are compelled to, against ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Okay; Read & re-read most NWN 2 Posts & Gothic 3
    ... I don't have a strong opinion on cartels; however, ... It's also irrelevant because he says that inventions can't be owned, ... exclusively to patents overlooks the principlebeing expressed. ... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: Okay; Read & re-read most NWN 2 Posts & Gothic 3
    ... I don't have a strong opinion on cartels; however, ... It's also irrelevant because he says that inventions can't be owned, ... exclusively to patents overlooks the principlebeing expressed. ... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: General Question - Cultivating/Keeping afloat DSP skills
    ... many more unpatented inventions. ... One of my patents is for applying the ... I think design engineers have a technical half life of maybe three years. ... I don't think it is that important whether you use an FPGA or DSP ...
    (comp.dsp)
Loading